Re: [MMUSIC] SDP Directorate review of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard

Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> Tue, 18 December 2012 02:20 UTC

Return-Path: <bill.wu@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0E9C11E8097; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 18:20:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.674
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.674 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.172, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CVx9UCUcP1XH; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 18:20:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C4DA21F8584; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 18:20:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id AMO97833; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 02:20:29 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.241) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 02:20:22 +0000
Received: from szxeml459-hub.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.202) by lhreml402-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.241) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 02:20:28 +0000
Received: from w53375 (10.138.41.149) by szxeml459-hub.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.202) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 10:20:24 +0800
Message-ID: <A4AC6E76F05F423DA11BFB0DCE52FE0C@china.huawei.com>
From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
To: Glen Zorn <gwz@net-zen.net>, Jonathan Lennox <jonathan@vidyo.com>
References: <C3759687E4991243A1A0BD44EAC823034DFB915B07@BE235.mail.lan> <50CFCBF9.3070301@net-zen.net>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 10:20:23 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6109
X-Originating-IP: [10.138.41.149]
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Cc: xrblock@ietf.org, draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard@tools.ietf.org, mmusic@ietf.org, gwz@net-zen.net
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] SDP Directorate review of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <mmusic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmusic>
List-Post: <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 02:20:35 -0000

I guess the reference "RFC3711 section 5" Jonathan mentioned should be corrected as "RFC3611 section 5".
If my understanding is correct, what Jonathan suggested is to have the following change:
OLD TEXT:
"
   RFC 3611 defines the use of SDP (Session Description Protocol)
   [RFC4566] for signaling the use of RTCP XR blocks.  XR blocks MAY be
   used without prior signaling.

"
NEW TEXT:
"
   RFC 3611 defines the use of SDP (Session Description Protocol)
   [RFC4566] for signaling the use of RTCP XR blocks.  However XR blocks MAY be
   used without prior signaling (see section 5 of RFC3611).
"
Please correct me if I am wrong.

Regards!
-Qin
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Glen Zorn" <gwz@net-zen.net>
To: "Jonathan Lennox" <jonathan@vidyo.com>
Cc: <mmusic@ietf.org>; <draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard@tools.ietf.org>; <gwz@net-zen.net>
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 9:50 AM
Subject: Re: SDP Directorate review of draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard


> On 12/17/2012 10:49 PM, Jonathan Lennox wrote:
> 
>> I have been asked to perform  the SDP Directorate review for
> > draft-ietf-xrblock-rtcp-xr-discard. I reviewed the -10 version of the
> > document.
> >
> >
> >
> > Syntactically, the SDP usage in this document seems fine. It is a
> > simple and correct usage of an extension point defined in RFC 3711.
> >
> >
> >
> > However, the statement in Section 4 that "XR blocks MAY be used
> > without explicit signaling" is confusing, as it implies that the
> > entire SDP section is entirely optional. This document should at
> > least reference Section 5 of RFC 3711, which gives guidance as to
> > when SDP signaling of the use of XR blocks is recommended.
> >
> 
> I'm not sure why this is confusing (aside from fact that RFC 3711 is 
> itself confusing: it says "although the use of SDP signaling for XR 
> blocks may be optional, if used, it MUST be used as defined here". /May/ 
> be optional?  Optionality seems pretty black and white to me ;-).  That 
> said, however, it does seem to be relatively clear that the usage of SDP 
> /is/ optional & along with it the section on SDP in this and other 
> similar drafts.  What am I missing?
> 
> ...
>